PL EN


2009 | 5 | 2 | 241-270
Article title

Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than Answers

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This paper reflects on the conceptual nature of interjections. Although there are convincing reasons to claim that interjections do not encode concepts, arguments can be adduced to question such claim. In fact, some pragmatists have contended that they may be conceptual elements. After reviewing both the non-conceptualist and conceptualist approaches to interjections, this paper discusses some reasons that can be given to reconsider the conceptuality of interjections. Nevertheless, it adopts an intermediate standpoint by arguing that the heterogeneity of interjections, with items incorporated from other lexical categories, and the openness of the word class they constitute, which results in the coinage of certain interjections or the innovative usage of some elements, could indicate the existence of a continuum of more and less conceptual items. In any case, this paper suggests that those items with conceptual content would not encode full concepts, but some schematic material requiring subsequent pragmatic adjustments.
Publisher
Year
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
241-270
Physical description
Dates
published
2009-01-01
online
2010-01-06
Contributors
author
  • University of Seville
References
  • Aijmer, Karin. 2004. "Interjections in a contrastive perspective." In Emotion in Dialogic Interaction: Advances in the Complex, edited by Weigand Edda, 99-120. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Alcaide Lara, Esperanza. 1996. "La interjección." In La Expresión de la Modalidad en el Habla de Sevilla, edited by Catalina Fuentes Rodríguez and Esperanza Alcaide Lara. Seville: Servicio de Publicaciones del Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.
  • Ameka, Felix K. 1992a. "Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech." Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101-118, doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G.[Crossref]
  • Ameka, Felix K. 1992b. "The meaning of phatic and conative interjections." Journal of Pragmatics 18: 245-271, doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90054-F.[Crossref]
  • Ameka, Felix K. 2006. "Interjections." In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown, 743-746. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1987. "The instability of graded structure in concepts." In Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, edited by Ulric Neisser, 101-140. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blass, Regina. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: a Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bolly, Catherine and Liesbeth Degand. 2009. "Grammaticalisation of discourse markers: From conceptual to procedural meaning?" Paper presented at the International Conference Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Madrid.
  • Buridant, Claude. 2006. "L'interjection: Jeux et enjeux." Languages 161: 3-9.
  • Calvo Pérez, Julio. 1996. "¡¡Interjecciones!!" In Panorama de la Investigación Lingüística a l'Estat Espagnol. Actes del I Congrés de Lingüística General, III, edited by Enric Serra et al., 85-98. Valencia: Universitat de València.
  • Carston, Robyn. 1996. "Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 61-88.
  • Carston, Robyn. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Carston, Robyn. 2002b. "Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning - more questions than answers." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 83-105.
  • Clark, Billy and Tim Wharton. 2009. "Prosody and the interaction of procedural meaning." Paper presented at the International Conference Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Madrid.
  • Clark, Herbert H. and Jean. E. Fox Tree. 2002. "Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking." Cognition 84: 73-111, doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3.[PubMed][Crossref]
  • Cueto Vallverdú, Natalia and María Jesús López Bobo. 2003. La Interjección. Semántica y Pragmática. Madrid: Arco Libros.
  • Curcó, Carmen and Chantal Melis. 2009. "Diachronic change and procedural meaning in the emergence of discourse markers: a proposal." Paper presented at the International Conference Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Madrid.
  • Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon.
  • Escandell Vidal, María Victoria. 1998. "Intonation and procedural encoding: The case of Spanish interrogatives." In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, edited by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 169-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fischer, Kerstin and Martina Drescher. 1996. "Methods for the description of discourse particles: Contrastive analysis." Language Sciences 18. 3-4: 853-861, doi: 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00051-4.[Crossref]
  • Fodor, Jerry. 1981. Representations. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
  • Fraser, Bruce. 2004. "An account of discourse markers." In Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, edited by Pilar Garcés Conejos, Reyes Gómez Morón, Lucía Fernández Amaya and Manuel Padilla Cruz, 13-34. Seville: Research Group Intercultural Pragmatics.
  • Fraser, Bruce. 2006. "On the conceptual-procedural distinction." Style:
  • Fretheim, Thorstein. 1998. "Intonation and the procedural encoding of attributed thoughts: The case of Norwegian negative interrogatives." In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, edited by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 205-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
  • Greenbaum, Sidney. 2000. The Oxford Reference Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Grice, Herbert P. 1957. "Meaning." Philosophical Review 66: 377-388.
  • Grice, Herbert P. 1975. "Logic and conversation." In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press.
  • Itani, Reiko. 1998. "A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: With special reference to Japanese sentence-final particle tte." In Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications, edited by Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, 47-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kleiber, Georges. 2006. "Sémiotique de l'interjection." Langages 161: 10-23.
  • Meng, Katharina and Susanne Schrabback. 1999. "Interjections in adult-child discourse: The cases of German HM and NA." Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1263-1287, doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00105-2.[Crossref]
  • Montes, Rosa Graciela. 1999. "The development of discourse markers in Spanish: Interjections." Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1289-1319, doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00106-4.[Crossref]
  • Nicole, Steve and Billy Clark. 1998. "Phatic interpretations: Standardisation and conventionalisation." Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 183-191.
  • Nicoloff, Frank. 1990. "How so/such/what/how exclamatories mean." Grazer Linguistische Studien 33-34: 207-225.
  • Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Available online at
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2005. "Relevance theory and historical linguistics: Towards a pragmatic approach to the morphological changes in the preterite from Old English to Middle English." Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 183-204.
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2009. "Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections." International Review of Pragmatics 1(1): 182-206.
  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Rosier, Laurence. 2000. "Interjection, subjectivité, expressivité et discourse rapporté à l'écrit: Petits effets d'un petit discourse". Cahiers de Praxématique 34: 19-49.
  • Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. "Rethinking well." Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1025-1060, doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9.[Crossref]
  • Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sierra Soriano, 1999. Ascención. "L'interjection dans la BD: Réflexions sur sa traduction." Meta 44: 582-603.[Crossref]
  • Smidt, Kristian. 2002. "Ideolectic characterisation in A Doll's House." Scandinavia. An International Journal of Scandinavian Studies 41 (2): 191-206.
  • Sperber, Dan. 2005. "Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context dependent?" In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, edited by Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence and Stephen Stich, New York: Oxford University Press, 53-68, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179675.003.0004.[Crossref]
  • Sperber, Dan. and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Sperber, Dan. and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Sperber, Dan. and Deirdre Wilson. 1997. "The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 107-125.
  • Sperber, Dan. and Deirdre Wilson. 2008. "A deflationary account of metaphors." In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, edited by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Światkowska, Marcela. 2006. "L'interjection: Entre deixis et anaphore". Langages 161: 47-56.
  • Torres Sánchez, M. Ángeles. 2000. La interjección. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.
  • Vassileva, Albena. 1994. "Vers un traitement modal de l'interjection: Traduction de la modalité injonctive par les interjections en français." Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 23 (1): 103-110.
  • Vassileva, Albena. 2007. "Sur le traitment de la forme du signifié interjectionnel." Langages 165: 115-122.
  • Wałaszewska, Ewa. 2004. "What to do with response cries in relevance theory?" In Relevance Studies in Poland. Volume I, edited by Ewa Mioduszewska, 119-129. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.
  • Wharton, Tim. 2000. "Interjections, evolution and the ‘showing’/‘saying’ continuum." Paper presented at The Evolution of Language Conference. Université de Paris.
  • Wharton, Tim. 2001. "Natural pragmatics and natural codes." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 109-161, doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00237.[Crossref]
  • Wharton, Tim. 2003. "Interjection, language, and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum." Pragmatics and Cognition 11: 39-91, doi: 10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha.[Crossref]
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. "The semantics of interjection." Journal of Pragmatics 18: 159-192, doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90050-L.[Crossref]
  • Wilkins, David P. 1992. "Interjections as deictics." Journal of Pragmatics 18: 119-158, doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H.[Crossref]
  • Wilkins, David P. 1995. "Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjection as deictics". In Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective, edited by Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder and Lynne E. Hewitt, 359-386. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Wilson, Deirdre. 1997. "Linguistic structure and inferential communication." Paper presented at the 16th International Congress of Linguistics.
  • Wilson, Deirdre. 2009. "The conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future." Paper presented at the International Conference Procedural Meaning. Problems and Perspectives. Madrid.
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston. 2007. "A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts." In Advances in Pragmatics, edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230-260. London: Palgrave.
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 1993. "Linguistic Form and Relevance." Lingua 90: 1-26, doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5.[Crossref]
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2002. "Relevance theory." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249-287.
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2004. "Relevance theory". In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Lawrence R. Horn and Gregory L. Ward, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell, doi: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch27.[Crossref]
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Tim Wharton. 2006. "Relevance and prosody". Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559-1579, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012.[Crossref]
  • Žegarac, Vladimir. 1998. "What is phatic communication?" In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, edited by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 327-361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_2478_v10016-009-0015-9
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.